- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 22:56:53 +0900
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Robin Berjon wrote: >>What the paragraph above states in not that all the requirements in the >>schema are in the prose, it says that if there are *conflicting* >>requirements between the prose and the schema, then the prose takes >>over. > > This does not satisfy me, at the very least this clarification needs to > be added to the draft It has been. >, but that would not make much sense. If the prose > considers a specific document compliant while the schema does not, that > is a conflict between prose and schema. Precisely. The prose is normative, the schema is normative. Since both constrain whan an SVG document may be and while we are doing our best to ensure that this does not happen, it is possible that the two may conflict. In such situations an implementer or a content creator needs to know which to follow. We are saying that it is the prose. Some constraints are also impossible to express using a schema language. For such situations, it is important that people understand that comforming to the schema alone is not enough, and that if the schema is too lax compared to the prose, the prose is the source of authority. > That's redundant with appendix D.3.1 so I arrive > at my original conclusion that either all conflicts or the statement > under discussion should be removed. I'm not sure what you mean by "all conflicts should be removed". The statement can surely be moved around if there is a good reason to do so. -- Robin Berjon Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 13:56:57 UTC